The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, act as legal, financial or credit advice; instead, it is for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not be current. This website may contain links to other third-party websites. Such links are only for the convenience of the reader, user or browser; we do not recommend or endorse the contents of any third-party sites. Readers of this website should contact their attorney, accountant or credit counselor to obtain advice with respect to their particular situation. No reader, user, or browser of this site should act or not act on the basis of information on this site. Always seek personal legal, financial or credit advice for your relevant jurisdiction. Only your individual attorney or advisor can provide assurances that the information contained herein – and your interpretation of it – is applicable or appropriate to your particular situation. Use of, and access to, this website or any of the links or resources contained within the site do not create an attorney-client or fiduciary relationship between the reader, user, or browser and website owner, authors, contributors, contributing firms, or their respective employers.
Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them. Compensation is not a factor in the substantive evaluation of any product.
Last fall, the federal courts covered some of the escaping ground as it relates to GPS tracking. An October editorial in The New York Times read, “In August, three judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (two conservatives, one liberal) ruled unanimously—and correctly—that police violated the Constitution when they hid a GPS device on a person’s car and tracked his every move without a valid warrant. That person, Antoine Jones, was convicted of conspiracy to distribute crack and cocaine based on the tracking of his Jeep for four weeks.”
In a landmark 1967 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment, stating that “Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
In the Jones case, police used a 1983 precedent that allowed them to track a vehicle without a warrant using a beeper. The argument was grounded on the idea that anyone could have reasonably tracked in a similar way with or without the beeper. But GPS is different not “of degree but of kind,” the Appeals court ruled. The tracking in the Jones case could not have been done without GPS technology.
As the Times concluded, “Digital technology raises questions about differences between cyberspace and the physical world, which most search-and-seizure laws deal with. In showing why a powerful advance in technology calls for significantly greater protection of privacy, the three-judge panel provided an important example of how the law can respond to new circumstances.”
We’re only going to see more of these types of cases and, hopefully, rulings like this that fall on the side of greater privacy protection. It’s important to remember that it’s not just hackers and bad guys, but law enforcement, corporations, marketers—businessmen and “good guys”—who are bending and redefining our definitions of privacy and privacy rights.
There is no playbook, as of yet, on what is allowed and what isn’t in drawing connections between the world of new technology born every day and the physical world of people. Yet we can watch it getting written, in real time.
October 19, 2023
Identity Theft and Scams
May 17, 2022
Identity Theft and Scams
May 20, 2021
Identity Theft and Scams